Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 10, 2014 4:00am-4:31am PST

4:00 am
>> good, morning is wednesday, october 15, 2014, this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. and i would like to remind everyone for turn off all electronic devices. and the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> president mccarthy? >> here. >> vice president mar. >> here. >> commissioner lee. >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present >> commissioner melgar. >> here. >> sxh commissioner walker.
4:01 am
>> here. >> and commissioner clinch is excused and we have a quorum and the next item is president's announcements. >> madam secretary, if it is okay with my fellow commissioners i will take this out of order and go to item 5, supervisor scott weiner is here to give us a discussion on this as he has another appointment, if we could, if there is no objection we will go to item five. >> okay. we will be calling agenda item five.discussion of proposed legislation file no. 140954 ordinance amending the planning code to permit exceptions from dwelling unit density limits and other requirements of the code when adding dwelling units to existing buildings undergoing seismic retrofitting; deleting the requirement that a new in-law unit constructed in and near the castro street neighborhood commercial district be limited to 750 square feet; correcting outdated cross-references and code language; affirming the planning department's california environmental quality act determination; and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >>
4:02 am
>> good morning, supervisors. >> thank you commissioners for taking this up and giving us the opportunity to speak with you about this legislation, and so legislation before you. i know that you know that we are in a housing crisis right now and there are many things that we need to do in a short run and over time to address that crisis. and but one of the things that we need to do is make sure that we are adding sufficient housing to deal with a growing population. we have grown by 85,000 people, and since 2003 and added 20,000 units of housing during that time period and as you know it is not going to stop and we are
4:03 am
projected to grow by 150,000 between now and 2040 and we are doing our best to stabilize the people in the housing that we have and the legislation that we passed earlier this year to allow for a pass and legalize existing unlaw units is one piece of trying to stabilize the housing that we have and make sure that the people are not thrown out of their housing but same time we are adding more housing and of course we have the mega project with the shipyard and treasure island and they are moving for ward in the smaller project but it is my view that we also need to be looking at the existing building stock that we have and many buildings in the city, not just the single family homes but apartment buildings have extra space that could be turned into living units, but because of the zoning they can't do it. and particularly many apartment buildings and people don't focus on this when we talk about the inlaw units.
4:04 am
there so earlier this year, the legislation for the castro area, and to allow people to add new inlaw unit into his their building it is actually the leading limitation and i will explain why, but it will allow for the addition of these units as long as you don't exceed the building envelope and we will not go to the existing space, whether it is a garage or a large storage area on the first floor or partially above ground basement and the legislation also provided that if the unit is added into an existing rent controlled
4:05 am
building, that the unit will also be rent controlled and so allowing us to do what a lot of people say is impossible, which is to add to the rent controlled housing stock. and the legislation also provided exactly the same as president chu's legization legislation for a wage deal with the building code issue as we know have been a huge impediment to legalizing the units for the equivalency for the state building code so that the people can actually move forward. and so, the legislation passed, and it was signed by the mayor and new now and the people are checking it out and but we are optimistic and the people that they are pursuing the inlaw units are the most affordable housing and they tend to be in parts of buildings that are maybe not the fancyist parts of the building that tend to be on the ground floor and tend to be
4:06 am
usually a bit smaller than the other apartments and they also are very good option for an aging city, because, you can't get off of the steps any more and as you know, some people who have added or own a single family home and converted the garage into an inlaw moved into it because they can't get up to the steps and rent it out on the top and so this legislation will, if you are doing the mandatory, or the buildings that are at least five units and three stories and do an evaluation. and we know that there are a
4:07 am
lot of apartments where there are no units at all, and you will add the two units and the legislation will allow them to do that. and the basically the same rules will fly from the castro legislation in terms of the building envelope and the code, and modification, and so forth. and the one exception that you will see that it does allow for up to a three foot bump in height. and because there are some situation wheres that might be unnecessary and there will be two, i think, positives coming out of this, first, it will allow people to add new housing, and in a way that does not create higher bulk issues and for the people that we are requiring to do the retrofit, it provides them with a little bit of a bonus and, we are going to aslow you while you have your
4:08 am
contractor out there and your architect you can explore this and do it and it is a little bit more efficient and we are adding the new housing stock and in addition for the people who are not mandated to do a seismic retrofit, but maybe are considering whether to do one t gives them the intentive to do it even though it is not mandated because they can do it and it will trigger the ability to add one or more units. that is the legislation and the other piece relating to the
4:09 am
modification of the castro, accessory, dwelling unit, we had initially and we have put a 750 square foot cap in that legislation, and under the rationale was that we wanted this to be as affordable as possible and so if you cap it at 750 square feet, you can help to accomplish that. and late in the process, and actually this is as supervisor kim raises and actually she made some pretty good arguments and groups like livable city and also raised the issue that the 750 square foot, could be a bit arbitrary and what if you have 825 and whatever feet you are using does that mean have you to build the walls to wall off and actually we know someone who is doing it in the castro would has 800 square feet.
4:10 am
we decided not to use that here, and it gets a little micromanagy after a while and so we are trying to start the balance of having the limitation and constraints around it, and while not build them, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner melgar and commissioner walker, thank you. >> thank you for this and i think that it is really smart, and really good public policy. and can you explain a little bit more about the 750 limit and how it would take it out, would apply to the rest of the city? >> well, it normally the 750 square feet is only related to the castro, and the previous inlaw legislation was for the castro and the deleting of 750 square feet, applies to the legislation and on this seismic dwelling unit and we are not
4:11 am
including a square foot maximum and if a building does quite a bit of square footage, yes, someone could build huge but the chances are that they are benefit to building multiple smaller ones. >> we are hoping that the price, that the return for any of the ininvestment will deter someone from doing that. >> from doing? >> from building a made and a unit. >> yeah, and probably you will end up in the long run as more valuable to have more plumbing and there are extra up front costs there. but over time, if, and if it is probably makes sense to build more, rather than larger. >> okay. >> commissioner walker? >> great, i also think that this is really one part of a good solution, package for creating more housing. and i do have some questions about we are adding an individual separate unit, and
4:12 am
we are and we are getting transit consideration, and transit parking, and the other fees, that usually apply to creating the units? and i understand that this is an incentive and but it does create a little bit more, you know, of the population that we need infrastructure. >> right. >> and you know, mitigation for. >> absolutely. and right now, i am trying to change this and i hope that i succeed. it does not apply to the residential in san francisco. it should. >> and we are the proposed and we are transitioning and hopefully we will do this by first half of next year that the idea of the future of the transit sustainability program, which does propose eliminating or excuse me, applying, the development fee to market rate and so i hope in the future we will do that. and now, it has been the question if you do it above a
4:13 am
threshold, and that will be a topic of discussion. also, we would have increasing sort of complications around enforcing short term rental, you know, in-laws, and etc.. how does this fit in, and how if we, if we are not reassessing, which is, you know, the assessor is adding a unit. >> that would be reassess. >> yes, the unit would be reassessed but not the seismic. >> right. >> and so this would be defined as a separate unit, and fall under the restrictions of the currently passed short term rental. okay, and do you have an idea and do we have a projection of how many buildings this might apply to and how many units that might create? >> well, i think that there are what is it five to 6,000 soft
4:14 am
story potential candidates and not all of those will be mandated but they are being evaluated if i am not mistaken. and the director? >> yeah. good morning, commissioners my name is tom, and first of all, we have our (inaudible) and we expect maybe 5,000 or, you know, around the area and we will be repeating the program. and then, how many people we are over it yet and in the ordinance passed and we will see, you know, just like the equalizing the (inaudible) roughly we had 40 applications. but depending on the approved free, you know that we will see when they n come. in the inquirery may be close to 1,000 people will ask and in the program, but everybody is sit and wait. it is already... and i hope,
4:15 am
you know, i hope that you will move ahead on that one. >> i would think that so if there are 5,000 5500 notices that go out and 5,000 who have to do the evaluation and let's say that i don't just make-up a number, 3,000 have to do the soft story, they will have the option but also, there is another 2,000 who do not have to do it and might decide to do it any way, and you might have a 5 unit building that is only 2 stories, that is long and it might be a three unit building and so they don't trigger here the evaluation and but they made and once you get into that universe, we doebt don't really know, and i can tell you that the planning department estimated that for the castro, legislation, their best estimate, being some what conservative was about 400 units over time, and obviously, it takes time, of the people willing to figure it out or they don't know about it or the owner comes in and decides to do it. and so it could be, significant. >> yeah. great. >> great.
4:16 am
>> commissioner? >> i think that there was proposed legislation is wonderful and if you when we were discussing the mandatory seismic fit and we are talking about how to give it to the property owners to encourage them and so that i think this is a great piece of legislation and it does give an incentive and my question would be maybe we can open this up to the rest of the city instead of just the castro. >> and so first of all two things, this legislation applies city wide and we did exempt that it does not apply to rh1, d and you know, it is, you know the politics around that. and frankly, in terms of retrofits in rh 1 zones, you are just not going to see very many retrofit and so we decided on balance that it will not be enough benefit for having the real intensity of the discussion that we have to have and let's focus on the areas
4:17 am
that the city will apply and in terms of the castro legislation, you know, we supervisor peskin tried to do and in the new inlaw unit city wide, ten years ago and when he fought the good fight and the valiant fight and he lost. and i give him a lot of credit for trying. and so, i just decided to proceed on a previous legislation, so let's start with a neighborhood that tends to be more accepting of new housing and of density and a neighborhood that has an aging population or a particularly a larging lgbt population where people are really looking for different kinds of housing opportunities and ways to be able to stay in a neighborhood if they can't get up the steps any more or if they are displaced from their housing and also a neighborhood that tends to have a lower car ownership rate and that is
4:18 am
relatively one or more of my colleagues said that let's try my district and i have been trying to encourage them and no one has beat me up, but i am hoping that will have, but i can and i will not name them but i think of the neighborhoods that will be really good candidates for it. so it is going to be a gradual thing over time. >> so this will apply to all units under going seismic retrofit.
4:19 am
>> correct. >> not necessarily that are required to go. >> voluntary as well. >> that is very smart, thank you. >> goods morning, supervisor. good morning. >> the legislative, and cold and senses are strong shs and appreciated, are you looking at any ways. >> when we went to the castro, let's require this and that. and you know, i, and often we will push back and say hey, that may be a good idea, but we, you know, we don't want to make it so hard that people just say that i am not going to deal with this. because when someone is going to invest, and in the 50, 75, and 100,000 depending on the
4:20 am
complexity and whether there is electrical and plumbing hook up and they are going to have to go through the planning process, and in the planning process is, and then, you know, we want to not put so many burdens on this and so you are doing what we want and spending the money and going through the planning process and we are going to put one million restrictions on it and so we are trying to make it an easy process. and i am a little troubled to hear that only 3 have made it through the planning department, yet and that i have not known that and i am glad to know that. and because the planning department needs to not be and i am going to ask about that. and you know, we just want to try to make a process as easy as possible for people and this does trigger a 311, notice. we, you know, we thought that it was some people who thought that this should just be not even notice and i think that it is, and it is important for the neighbors to at least, know,
4:21 am
but we tried to make it an easy process. supervisor thank you for coming and with the notice today and then with the update and legislatively, what are you hoping to field, and you might have answered this question already. >> i don't think that it has been schedule at the planning commission, yet. and so, we will you know, i presuming that it will go to the commission, and certainly by the end of the year and so i am hoping that we can bring it to land use, you know, by you know, december, and maybe january, at the latest. >> but we also, one thing that i want to say, is and we are actually going to reach out to the mayor's office, and we want to get the word out, now. to people who are either, who are contemplating or required to do the seismic, to say, it is not passed yet, but this is here, and so, keep this in mind and because we don't want to lose the opportunities. >> yeah, and to, and commissioner walker i will go to you to. and he, one thing that we learned from that whole out reach program is that it is a
4:22 am
model and how to do it and because that seems to be a huge problem with getting that message out there in the communication. and so, he really has that done and so that will be a great vehicle for you to kind of get the facts out there on this. and commissioner walker? >> and i also would suggest that we send it to the code advisory for their input like we do, i mean that it is not really relevant or it is, to the department or that would be a good next step. >> and i think that it would, wouldn't it? and i think that it would automatically and so when it is finalized and it is in the final form it will go up and yeah. >> if i could also, maybe on the previous point about getting the word out. i don't know, director if there is a way for or to put the word out to dbi staff, that as they are processing applications or interacting with the property owners about this seismic work, even just to say, hey by the way, do you know this legislation is pending?
4:23 am
you know, just to do everything that we can, and dbi is as i imagine having the most direct public interaction on this issue. >> commissioner lee and you. >> and how about this, supervisor, i don't know, i would trust that our department does have a list of all of the 6,000 properties, owners, and how about if we shared that list with the supervisor's office and let the supervisor's office have that. >> contact information. >> and okay, or, we could just, work with them to prepare if it is an e-mail or a letter to the people just to alert them. and yes, so we are connecting with mr. odaline and he would be the best person to work with? or director huey as well and get the notification out? >> yes, and supervisor, we can do two things, share the lease, and then say, that we will reach out with all of those people and you know, even in the program and also, we have
4:24 am
(inaudible) >> i don't need the list, we can work on what the communication looks like and either dbi or the mayor's office can send that out. okay, thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor. >> we got you out. >> okay, good. >> thank you. is there any public comment on item 5 seeing none, what is next. >> we do. >> we have public comment on item five >> good morning, charlie goes at the department association and i just want to expression support for this legislation and we feel like it is a common sense piece of legislation and it is a nice piece to our housing puzzle. and a lot of our members are going to be doing seismic work in the very near future, the four to seven years coming up and they had to evaluate the
4:25 am
properties in the past year, and so we are supporting of this and i would surge you to get out the word, any way that you can because the work will be done, pretty soon. but we think that this is a very smart piece of legislation and we are supportive it. >> sir? >> in terms of your work, what are the numbers that you are looking at over the next five years? >> as far as..., this will create. you know, i really don't know, what i can tell you is that i have gotten a ton of calls from our membership about this legislation. and probably as many as the inlaw legislation. and there is a lot of interest in it, and one thing that i will say that is different with the inlaw legislation, is that if someone was legalizing inlaw they could be putting in a single family home under rent control and you don't have that problem here, and i think that incentivizes a lot more people to create these units. >> thank you.
4:26 am
>> any further public comment? >> seeing none, president mccarthy, what item? >> the president and announcements and then, we will take it from there, okay? >> and item 2, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody and thank you for all being here, and a big thank you to building bureau and david (inaudible) of the plumbing inspection division and for all of them for providing excellent customer service this month, and a thank to retrofit team, (inaudible) and please forgive me if i miss pronounce the names here for helping to generate an excellent media coverage of the code enforcement phase that began on october 7th with additional coverage, the non-compliance,
4:27 am
go to 350, and motivated by sophomore owners into admitting the screening forms and so thank you for that. >> thanks to the fellow commissioners for the joint meeting with the planning commission, on october second and the update provides by the staffers from both departments on the tpts the projects schedule to go live on the december 8 and i think that we are going to get an update on that today and along with the discussion on code enforcement issues and including additional, and additional one comment, and coming to planning with the passage of short term, and ordinance, and where they are helpful to all. and that madam, president, concludes my president's announcements. >> thank you. >> is there any comment on president's announcements? seeing none, if i may, if i could get the commissioners to
4:28 am
concur, if item 9, would be tabled, as of today. and we will probably bring it back at another meeting if there is no objections to that. it is on our... is there any objections? commissioners on that? >> if i may, i just kind of would like to and the kind of road map and i think that it was, we have kind of talked about 6 times here in our commission meeting and it has been a have, as you know, kind of a journey for me, because i really followed this piece of legislation and how it went through the system. and so, i have to continue today because i want to thank the fire department, the
4:29 am
4:30 am
communication, the out reach and the working together of everybody and i did have a visit to supervisor cohen's office and i did talk to her chief and she was not too happy with me, particularly on the communication aspect of things. particularly when we had said it on the last hearing. to talk about and her position was that there was not enough notice given to her and this is their legislation and they were not involved. and kind of just struck me that this was the last thing that i wanted to hear. and we live in a world, director, where our department has to communicate with everybody. and not everybody understands how wet
left
right